The JFK 100

Clay Shaw Admits an Alias

Oliver Stone's JFK depicts Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) blithely admitting to the use of an alias the real-life Shaw had always denied. Did the events in Stone's film actual occur as presented?

The authentic trial testimony regarding this episode is available online in its entirety, but author James Kirkwood, who attended the trial, provides a concise and accurate summary in his book, American Grotesque:

In the summer of 1968 the District Attorney's office had authorized the release to the press of information contained on the fingerprint card made out at the Police
Bureau of Identification on the night of Clay Shaw's arrest. The States-Item printed a photograph of the card July 30, 1968, and ran an accompanying article which quoted police officer Aloysius J. Habighorst as stating Clay Shaw had freely admitted he used the Clay Bertrand alias. The alias was typed out on the card, which Shaw had signed. Shaw had steadfastly denied ever using the alias. The District Attorney's release of this purported incriminating evidence to the press was in strict violation of the pretrial guidelines; nevertheless this information had been widely circulated and highly publicized.

Now the state attempted to enter into evidence the fingerprint card together with the oral testimony of Officer Habighorst. Knowing he was in tricky territory, James Alcock wisely began by suggesting the jury be removed from the courtroom while the judge heard oral arguments pertaining to the admissibility of this matter.

Louis Ivon, Garrison's smooth-looking investigator, was sworn in and proved to be a somewhat groggy witness. Whether he wanted to discourage a lengthy session of questioning or whether he was simply having an off day of it was not known. He had been importantly present at Shaw's arrest, but when Dymond asked Ivon if ho knew what an arrest sheet looked like, the investigator replied, "I may have seen them. I may have filled some out."

DYMOND: Did you examine the original Clay Shaw arrest form?

IVON: I don't know.

Dymond exhibited the form which Ivon had actually signed and asked where he'd filled it out. Ivon could not remember if he'd signed the arrest form or not, or the search affidavit. Only when shown his signature did this come back to him and then he was unable to recall when or where he'd signed them.

Now Officer Habighorst, natty in a snug-fitting dark suit and vest, was called to the stand. The good-looking police officer told James Alcock he had fingerprinted
Shaw inside the Bureau of Investigation room the night of his arrest and that he'd not gotten the information he'd put down on the fingerprint card from Shaw's arrest record sheet, but from the defendant himself, including name, age, weight and, Habighorst and the state claimed, the alias Clay Bertrand. Habighorst detailed the procedure to Alcock and testified he had not threatened the defendant, not offered him promises of any sort in return for information, or abused him physically.

The policeman was cross-examined by Billy Wegmann, not Irvin Dymond. There was an interesting reason for the substitution.

Officer Habighorst's brother had been driving across a bridge several years previously and gotten into a contretemps with another motorist. They stopped their cars, argued, and then Habighorst's brother had taken out a gun, shot and killed the man. Dymond, who defended the brother, succeeded in reducing the crime from murder to manslaughter and the defendant had served four years in prison. It was widely rumored that Officer Habighorst thought his brother should have gotten off scot free, and his feelings toward Dymond were not friendly. In an attempt not to crank up an already hostile witness, Billy Wegmann handled the questioning.

Billy Wegmann, however, was not wearing kid gloves. His voice rang loud and clear and he did not permit time to swat flies between questions, nor did he allow the witness to dance rings around the answer. Wegmann headed immediately for a controversial area, wanting to know if Clay Shaw's lawyer, Eddie Wegmann, had been excluded from the B of I room when the defendant was being fingerprinted. Officer Habighorst said, "He was there for a time. If he was excluded, I don't know why." Was his attorney present, Billy Wegmann wanted to know, when Mr.
Shaw signed the card? "Yes, sir," the policeman replied. "Are you sure?" Billy Wegmann pressed. Now Habighorst hedged: "I recall he was inside the door. I would say he was more inside the Bureau of Identification than outside the door in the booking area." Hammering at the police officer, Wegmann asked if it wasn't a fact he had seen the arrest register on Clay Shaw before he was fingerprinted. Habighorst denied this, repeating his claim that he'd received the information directly from Shaw himself.

BILLY WEGMANN: Was Mr. Shaw's attorney there when you got an alias?

HABIGHORST: He could have been. I don't know.

Judge Haggerty interrupted, asking the police officer how far the defendant had been from his attorney during the fingerprinting. "I would say twenty feet,"
Habighorst ventured. "As far as I am from Mr. Alcock." Judge Haggerty surveyed the distance and said, "That's about thirty feet." Billy Wegmann wanted to know if Habighorst had been speaking in a normal voice; the policeman said he could not say whether Eddie Wegmann had heard him or not. At one point, Officer Habighorst was completely thrown by the use of the word "subsequent" in a question and Billy Wegmann was forced to rephrase the sentence. Now the all-important questions:

BILLY WEGMANN: Did Ivon tell you that Mr. Shaw was not to be questioned?

HABIGHORST: I don t recall.

BILLY WEGMANN: Did you advise [Shaw] of his constitutional rights?

HABIGHORST: No, I explained the booking procedure to him.

After a short afternoon recess, Dymond began to attack Habighorst s testimony by putting on the stand Captain Louis Curole, who had been on duty at Central
Lockup when Shaw was arrested and had assigned a Sergeant Butzman to guard Shaw until his booking and fingerprinting were completed. Captain Curole testified that, as a rule, attorneys are not permitted in the B of I room with their clients. He went on to say Edward Wegmann had not been allowed to go into the room with Clay Shaw. He further testified that a copy of the arrest record is almost always sent to the B of I room and that this form would include any aliases attributed to the arrestee.

Dymond asserted that the credibility of Habighorst's version was now seriously in doubt in light of Captain Curole's testimony. Alcock objected strenuously but the judge overruled him. Judge Haggerty's face was now tightening into a mold of absolute seriousness of purpose. His eyes were unblinking, as if he'd sighted a target that did not please him one bit.

Article continues below.

Clay Shaw

Aloysius Habighorst

Sergeant Jonas Butzman followed Captain Curole to the stand. He had been within five or ten feet of Clay Shaw all the time the defendant was in the B of I room. Butzman testified he had heard Habighorst ask Clay Shaw only one question and that was about the spelling of a name. Dymond's next question was "Did you ever hear the name Clay Bertrand mentioned?" "No," was the reply. The sergeant said he did not know if Habighorst had a copy of the field arrest form but indicated Eddie Wegmann had not been in the room at all.

The defense was picking up speed and called police officer John Perkins to the stand, again over Alcock's objections, but the judge, now pursed of mouth, quickly overruled him. Although Perkins was not on duty at the time of Shaw's arrest he was assigned to the B of I room. Questioned about standard operating procedure, the police officer testified he had never fingerprinted a person without the field arrest record. More damaging, he claimed that the fingerprints are applied to the card, after the arrestee signs the card, and the information is put on the card last of all.

Now Eddie Wegmann was called to the stand and questioned by his confrere Irvin Dymond. Eddie's face had never displayed such angry signs of colic as when he testified this day about Clay Shaw's arrest and the booking procedure. It was obvious he had much more on his mind than the specific testimony he was called to give this afternoon. Those were not acorns puffing out Ed Wegmann's cheeks. He was bursting with a sweeping blanket denunciation of the entire unspeakable injustice heaped upon his client from March 1, 1967, moment-to-moment, up until this very minute. If the jury had not still been playing poker in their waiting room upstairs, I think he might just have let it out in one ringing explosion. He snapped out his answers with bare civility to his own co-attorney in the case: No, he had not been allowed in the B of I room with his client. No, there had been nothing about an alias on any report sheet; no alias, in fact, had been mentioned that evening. He also testified about his meeting with Shaw in one of the DA's offices after Clay had been told he was being charged with the crime and was being placed under arrest. Eddie Wegmann said they'd kept the conversation to a minimum because he had been warned the room might be bugged.

After Eddie Wegmann was excused, Sal Panzeca, the junior member of the defense team, was questioned by Irvin Dymond. Short, compact and snappy, Panzeca had been the first legal counsel to see Clay Shaw on the day of his arrest. He testified he'd told Louis Ivon and other members of the D.A.'s staff that Clay Shaw was not to be questioned and that he would, under no circumstances, answer questions. Panzeca also testified he believed the room they were in was bugged, that communication between him and Clay Shaw was mostly accomplished by writing questions and answers on a pad, adding, "I told him not even to say hello or goodbye to anyone."

Now Clay Shaw took the stand -- the jury was still out -- and in a firm, clear voice began his testimony regarding the circumstances of his arrest. The press and spectators granted him complete silence and attention. Here was the Big Boy himself. Clay stuck to the questions asked him, never volunteering more information than was requested, as he testified that he had obeyed the orders of his attorneys and spoken to no one. In no uncertain terms, he testified he had signed a completely blank fingerprint card, had not been asked about an alias, had certainly never told anyone he had used an alias, and that his lawyer, Eddie Wegmann, had not been permitted to enter the B of I room with him.

Under cross-examination by James Alcock, Clay got a laugh when he testified about giving information to an officer who typed up his original arrest sheet, before going to the B of I room. Clay said he had been standing three or four feet away from the booking officer and had not seen exactly what the man was typing. The judge asked, "Was there anything preventing you from seeing over the counter?" To this, the six-foot-four defendant replied in an easy going voice, "No, that's never been a problem with me." The spectators and press laughed, and order in the court was called.

Clay Shaw also stood for no loose dangling ends. He had testified earlier that Habighorst told him it was necessary to sign the blank card in order to get bail, to which Clay said he replied, "In that case, I'll sign it." Now Alcock asked if Officer Habighorst had asked him any questions, to which Clay replied, "No." "You did not utter one word?" Alcock asked. Clay made no bones about correcting the attorney: "That was not my testimony. I said I was asked no questions."

It was after the defendant was excused that the fun and fireworks began. Alcock sought to enter into evidence and before the jury -- who had spent the afternoon
upstairs -- the fingerprint card and Habighorst's testimony. Dymond objected on the grounds that the witness testified he'd signed a blank card.

This brought forth the no-nonsense ruling of Judge Haggerty. He had been wound up by the preceding testimony of two lawyers, the defendant, and three members of the New Orleans Police Department, all in direct conflict with Officer Habighorst's testimony. Now he faced James Alcock squarely from his bench, saying he would not allow the fingerprint card or the testimony of Officer Habighorst introduced into the trial. He would hold to this ruling, no matter whose testimony was to be believed. Either way, the judge claimed a foul. Two policemen had violated Shaw's constitutional rights, he said, by not permitting the defendant to have his lawyer with him during the fingerprinting -- in direct contravention of the famed Escobedo decision, which allows an arrestee to have his attorney with him at all stages of the booking, fingerprinting, and questioning process. Judge Haggerty also announced that Officer Habighorst (and when he hit the name of the officer, the judge hit it hard) had violated in spirit the effect of the Miranda decision by not forewarning Clay Shaw of his right to remain silent. The judge went on to say Habighorst also violated Shaw's rights by asking him the alleged question about an alias, adding, now that he was revved up and clearing his mind of feelings built up by this afternoon's performance, "Even if he did [ask the question about an alias] it is not admissible" Judge Haggerty then spit out, "If Officer Habighorst is telling the truth -- and I seriously doubt it!"

Alcock leaped up from his chair at this remark, his cheeks instantly crimson and his voice highly shrill and trembling with anger as he shouted, "Are you passing on the credibility of a state witness in front of the press and the whole world?"

Judge Haggerty jutted his head forward and said, "It's outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Alcock." He then sat back and spoke in a loud voice. "I don't care. The whole world can hear that I disbelieve Officer Habighorst." He gave Alcock a what-do-you-think-of-that look and then, as if to punctuate his feelings for all time and leave no doubt whatsoever, Judge Haggerty leaned forward once again and said, "I do not believe Officer Habighorst!"(1)